Court ruling issued on motion filing

Man's document was delivered two years later

Published: Monday, September 30, 2013 at 11:10 a.m.

Last Modified: Monday, September 30, 2013 at 11:10 a.m.

A sender whose letter arrived just a little too late should not be penalized for what he could not control, the 5th District Court of Appeal has ruled.

After being sentenced in 2008 to life in prison for a sex-related crime, Salvador Antunez filed a motion for post-conviction relief.

Antunez, 58, handed his motion to a prison official on Feb. 21, 2011. But for an unknown reason, the letter did not arrive at the Marion County courthouse until April 22, 2013 — more than two years later.

Circuit Judge David Eddy denied the motion because it did not arrive within a two-year time limit set forth in the rules of criminal procedure.

“As a result, rather than addressing Antunez’s claims, the trial judge denied the motion as untimely and procedurally barred,” wrote the appellate court in its decision, which was issued Friday.

However, the higher court disagreed with the judge’s decision, citing the “mailbox rule.”

The rule, referred to in case law, states a post-conviction relief motion filed by the defendant himself is considered filed on the date the inmate relinquishes control of the letter to a state official for delivery.

Therefore, the higher court has reversed the judge’s decision and ordered Antunez’s motion to be considered on its merits.

<p>A sender whose letter arrived just a little too late should not be penalized for what he could not control, the 5th District Court of Appeal has ruled.</p><p>After being sentenced in 2008 to life in prison for a sex-related crime, Salvador Antunez filed a motion for post-conviction relief.</p><p>Antunez, 58, handed his motion to a prison official on Feb. 21, 2011. But for an unknown reason, the letter did not arrive at the Marion County courthouse until April 22, 2013 — more than two years later.</p><p>Circuit Judge David Eddy denied the motion because it did not arrive within a two-year time limit set forth in the rules of criminal procedure.</p><p>“As a result, rather than addressing Antunez's claims, the trial judge denied the motion as untimely and procedurally barred,” wrote the appellate court in its decision, which was issued Friday.</p><p>However, the higher court disagreed with the judge's decision, citing the “mailbox rule.”</p><p>The rule, referred to in case law, states a post-conviction relief motion filed by the defendant himself is considered filed on the date the inmate relinquishes control of the letter to a state official for delivery.</p><p>Therefore, the higher court has reversed the judge's decision and ordered Antunez's motion to be considered on its merits.</p>